Will Bononia be removed/renamed?

[anubis88]

I'm asking that, since i just noticed it was established almost 100 years after the start of EB

[bobbin]

A roman colony was esablished there in 189bc, that doesn't mean the city didn't exist before that. As far as i'm aware it used to be called Felsina and was a Etruscan town until the Boii settled the region.

Could possibly change the name to whatever the Boii called the place but i think Bononia was what they called it, sounds pretty celtic anyway,

[anubis88]

Yeah it could be... That's why i asked... Was it costumary that Romans didn't change the name of a newly established city?

[Scipio Germanicus]

Yeah it could be... That's why i asked... Was it costumary that Romans didn't change the name of a newly established city?

I'm pretty sure they did. For example, Taras, Rhegion, and Syrakousai in EB are the same cities as Tarentum, Rhegium, and Syracuse in vanilla RTW, only with their original Greek names.

[CaesarAugustus]

Well, city names were certainly Latinized like the three examples given above... I cannot think of too many examples of the Roamns completely changing the name of a city (except in extreme cases like the period where Jerusalem was renamed Aelia Capitolina).

As for Bononia I am sure that, like everything in EB, settlement names have been extensively researched and are in the language of the native inhabitants at the start of the game.

[Brennus]

More often than not the Romans would maintain the native settlement and then gradually transfer the inhabitants to a settlement which incorporated Roman and Native elements into the name (for example the city of Augustdonum in Gaul, August-from Augustus and Donum-Gallic word for city). This is one of the reasons so many Celtic names survive in regions today (Bohemia-Boii, Auvergne-Averni etc.) Only i a few cases were names of settlements completely changed, often to destroy the memory of the previous occupants, such as Carthage which was re-founded by Gracchus but reverted to Carthage soon after, or Jerusalem which which became Aelia Capitolina under Hadrian in an attempt to break Jewish nationalism.

One problem with Bonnonia is that historical accounts an archaeological evience from the period suggests that the Cisalpine Celts did not construct Oppida or other heavily urbanised settlements, so Bonnonia may be the only suitable term for the settlement in this region.

If anyone has any more accurate info please correct me (I have to write about Oppida development soon)

[Atilius]

More often than not the Romans would maintain the native settlement and then gradually transfer the inhabitants to a settlement which incorporated Roman and Native elements into the name

Roman colonies were often founded in close proximity to native settlements. I think it's more likely that the populations gradually intermingled. No official transfer of inhabitants was necessary.

Only i a few cases were names of settlements completely changed, often to destroy the memory of the previous occupants, such as Carthage which was re-founded by Gracchus but reverted to Carthage soon after,...

It was much more common for names to be superseded by those of neighboring Roman colonies rather than actually changed. In 299 BC, the Romans settling near the town of Nequinum in Umbria (which translates poorly into Latin) chose to name their colony Narnia after the nearby river Nar. Similarly, the name of the town Malventum ("ill-met" in Latin) drifted into obscurity once the colony of Beneventum ("welcome") was founded nearby in 268 BC. Starting in the 2nd century BC, it became difficult to find Romans willing to become colonists, and one gets the impression that colonies were named ("Neptunia", "Saturnia", "Copia", "Valentia", "Minervia", etc) specifically to attract them.

Gracchus did not succeed in founding a colony (to be named "Junonia") near the Carthage. The Lex Rubria authorizing it was repealed, though individual colonists may have been granted land in the area. Caesar planned a colony there, which was founded after his death.

One problem with Bonnonia is that historical accounts an archaeological evience from the period suggests that the Cisalpine Celts did not construct Oppida or other heavily urbanised settlements, so Bononia may be the only suitable term for the settlement in this region.

Yes. We will probably keep Bononia, though Placentia and Cremona would be possible candidates and have the advantage of being founded 30 years earlier.

[Urg]

I don't have time to do much research right now, but...

Pliny describes Bononia as "the chief place of Etruria" (which has been taken to mean the chief place north of the Apennines).

For some of the archaeological evidence of habitation prior to Roman colonisation, see this.